Is health care a fundemental right?

Great Debates
21

Speaking as an American
Health Care isn’t really a fundamental right in America but we are close. Those of the poor who are on welfare get a pretty decent health care system for free, last time I read up on it.

Health care economics is very complex. For example, if you provide health care, people live longer and can consume more expensive health care in the later years. This is offset by those same people working and paying into the system for more years.

Rights depend on costs. This is counter-intuitive. The fundamental rights of man are fundamental to the rich and the poor. But if you look closely, you notice that if somehow all the high tech medical care were to be available for $10 per year, some new drug that cures everything, say. We would then make it a government program available to all without an argument.

Likewise, slavery bagan to be seen as immoral only as the industrial revolution began to show how humanity could eliminate slavery. And was abolished first where it was needed the least.

With the future direction of medical technology uncertain, it’s hard to say how things will work out. The “Worst case” would be if somebody invents a perfect cure for any and all cancers that costs $1 million dollars per day because it requires rare elements (rhodium or something). If an alternative for $1 per day came along, we could provide it to everybody who needs it.

The current medical system in the US is very inefficient, with the various insurance companies sucking up a large portion of the health care dollar, and good portion of the rest going to the bureacracy that helps the doctor deal with the insurance organizations.

It is practically impossible to be a sole practice doctor in the US, I understand. The docs have to band together into clinics that have a data processing section that deals with the insurance companies. For a given patient with a bronchitus, say, each insurer has a different numerical code and the rules for coverage (what the insurer pays) depend on what the employment situation is for that patient. That is, the workers at Company A are covered by the “skimpy plan” of say, Aetna, but at Company B they are covered by a specially modified “Middle plan”. It’s byzantine.

Americans spend around 10% of the GDP on health care, last time I looked. That’s the highest percentage. Of a big GDP. And we get more complexity and high tech but not better health.

The existing hospitals and health insurers can invest many millions of dollars in lobbying and in producing convincing arguments and presentations to one and all that the current system is the “Worlds Best”.

22

I really don’t know how my previous post got duplicated…

23

To clarify this statement of yours:

For example, it is possible (very difficult, but possible) to get gender realignment performed on the NHS in the UK, especially if the doctors feel that the person in question is a suicide risk. Is that the kind of necessity you would see the needy getting?

24

I don’t know.

25

Having just gotten out of bed, and with the caffeine yet to hit my system, I fear I may not make a coherent argument. So I’ll just say that I feel it is morally wrong for a rich government to not provide health care to everyone. Someone mentioned public education. I believe that health care is as much a “right” as is the “right” to be educated. In the U.S. system a person may lose his health care when he loses his job. Some people are “entitled” to better health care just because they have a better job. If, as we say here, “All men are created equal”, the we should all have equal access to health care.
I’m fortunate in that I have a good job and I have medical insurance through it. I’m rarely sick. The insurance companies are making a profit of of me and others like me. But some people aren’t so lucky. I don’t think that people should potentially have a death sentence just because they don’t have a job.

I haven’t been to free clinics, but I’ve known people who have done. They sound like awful places. I think that a national health care system where people can visit their own doctors would be superior. I trained as an EMT at one point. I went to the hospital down the block to train in the emergency room. A black man came in with a bullet in his arm. The doctor spoke to the nurse: “Well, he’s okay. Let’s send him over to County.” The nurse replied, “He has insurance, doctor.” “Oh”, replied the doctor, “I guess we can take care of him here.” I could not believe this callous attitude. A man is injured and he is brought to hospital, and he will be turned away if he doesn’t have insurance? That disgusted me. If we had a national health care system similar to those in other countries, the man would have been treated without question.

The U.S. is a rich country. It has an obligation to provide health care to its citizens – who are the ones who make it a rich country. Cuba, on the other hand, is a poor country. And yet from what I’ve heard, its health care system is excellent.

Is health care a “right”? Maybe not; but it is something owed by a government to its citizens.

26

That makes two of us!

It’s an easier question to answer if there is universal health care though. :wink:

I should point out, lest anyone in this thread doesn’t realise, that both the UK and Ireland have thriving private health sectors that people can elect to use for a price.

27

OTOH one doesn’t even need to worry about the question if we control our own health care. E.g., I had lasik surgery, which wasn’t covered by my health insurance. I don’t know whether it’s covered by National Health. One could debate and politic and petition that lasik should be covered. Such an effort might or might not be successful. But, it was more effective to just pay for it and get my eyes zapped. I didn’t need the permission of some insurance company or government bureaucrat.

BTW thanks to competition, the cost of lasik has dropped dramatically. It’s quite affordable.

28

Yes, of course. Granted, I would get furious if my taxes were used to provide a hungry with Haute Cuisine, a homeless with a Beverly Hills address and a man in rags with Brioni.

But I wouldn’t want anyone to starve or freeze to death as well. Our countries are the richest that ever existed - we can easily afford to help the needy. But the “necessities” don’t seem to be a point of disagreement - at least, as long as we don’t talk about the specifics :).

jjimm’s questions are vital ones. The UK system has its merits but I think it’s hell for anyone who suffers from a costly and/or chronic desease.

In Germany and Switzerland, health care is usually secured by insurances and they provide a lot of services that are unheard of in Britain. Yet they are that expensive that their collapse is just a matter of time. Especially the german system is totally out of control.

But that has more to do with waste, the administrative costs, a greedy industry and doctors who earned too much for too long (as long as they don’t work in a hospital).

I do agree. The essential word is “control”; insurance companies are usually that powerful that you don’t really control your health care, they do - whether they are privately organized or publicly.

We don’t feel it as long as money is not an issue - but if they have to save it: where do they start to do so, in their organization or at their services?

I think the most important point is to organize health care in a way that establishes control of the ones who pay for it (and not live from it) and benefit from their services.

29

It’s still private in the UK and Ireland, too, and the same thing has happened, competition-wise. That said, I still can’t afford to have it done, and my (private) health insurance doesn’t cover it either.

30

Another (UK) European chiming in here.

I think everyone has the “right” to a healthly life. However, I’m not sure if this really is a right, as it requires action to fulfill it as opposed to the right to free speech which requires action to violate it. It is further constrained by the fact that we don’t have the technology to guarantee everyone a healthy life, and there exist some societies so poor they couldn’t afford to provide universal healthcare.

So how about this: Everyone is entitled to a minimum level of healthcare, this minimum level been determined by the ability of the society as a whole to pay for it.

31

Ireland appears to have found a good solution for elective medical treatment.

december, many of my students could not afford glasses, much less lasik surgery. They were provided with glasses. I’m not certain if that was by a government program or a charity.

Isn’t it possible that health care for all could increase the productivity of the impoverished? And the same could be said for providing housing. (It’s easier to get a job when you have an address.)

It has been a long time since I travelled, but in one country that I visited, the people were taxed at the rate of about 40%. There was a very strong work ethic. There was no poverty. Can you imagine? No one had to pay insurance costs. No one was wiped out by the expense of a prolonged illness. And everyone got five weeks of paid vacation a year – which contributed to their mental health, I think.

Our health care system in the USA is not working well. Maybe it is not a legal “right,” but health care for all is the compassionate thing to do. Maybe we should be asking ourselves why other countries don’t want to give up socialized medicine once they have it.

Frankly, I think some of our balking at “socialized” anything comes from a hangover from the 1950’s. If we started a crusade for socialized libraries, socialized education, socialized fire and police departments, people would object just because of “that word” – never realizing that they are already socialized.

32

I definitely favor health care being provided to the needy by charities and/or the government. (or, for the government to provide the money for the needy to buy their own health care.)

Health care for the improverished could improve the productivity of the impoverished. It doesn’t follow that the government needs to provide health care to those of us who can afford to pay for it.

A lot of Americans believe that socialized institutions tend not to work well. E.g., people complain about the high cost of mailings at the Post Office or overpriced military supplies. Government education seems to be working badly in many areas, leading to growth in home schooling and a demand to experiment with vouchers.

33

I cannot view it as a right. When we assume that we must take the corollary - that somebody must be forced to provide it…

If we do that, we run roughshod over the rights of the persons being forced.

34

Let me answer with another equally simplistic counter argument. Which is the greater violation of rights, allowing someone to die when resources are available to save them, or forcing someone to give up some of their resources?

35

Allowing someone to die is not a violation of rights. Killing them would be. And whilst I would not approve of watching someone die and doing nothing, I do not view it as a violation of a right either.

36

Well hang on a minute. Lemme see…
…Life…liberty…persuit of happiniess…separation of church and state…porn oh what thats persuit of happiness…equal treatment…no discrimination against color, religion, sex and handicap…hmmmm

Nope. Not a fundamental right.

It may be a form of charity or a very good front runner for excess spending but if the govt money is tight, healthcare and welfare are prime targets of the axe. Which is why I save for my own retirement and have my own insurance.

37

Another European (from UK, lives in Sweden) checking in.

I have to agree with other voices in here that I don’t believe that healthcare is a fundamental right, but that doesn’t stop me believing that it is the correct and moral system to have.

I am perfectly happy for a percentage of my earnings to be used to ensure that everyone else in this country will get adequete healthcare if they are in need. Every single one of them with absolutely no exceptions.

I don’t understand how anyone can sit back comfortably knowing that others in their own country are dying due to inadequete basic healthcare. On the other hand, many in the US don’t understand how I can happily allow myself to be taxed so heavily. In my opinion this is the only fundamental thing here, a fundamental difference between the philosophy of the United States and the rest of the western world - and it is not going to change any time soon.

38

I agree Amanset. Before i came on these boards i hadn’t been at all exposed to the sort of libertarian views expressed here by some where property rights are regarded as important as other rights regarding political and civil freedom. As this discussion shows, this leads to the conclusion that in certain cases, property rights are more important than human life.

39

You aren’t disagreeing with december, as far as I can tell.

He is saying (I think) that those who can afford to provide their own health care should do so, just as we expect those who can afford to provide their own housing to do so. So, the needy are exempt from that requirement.

Julie

40

So, is it your position that property rights are never more important than human life?

Julie